Per Yaqoob Mir, J.— 1. The petitioner in WPPIL No. 02/2012 is an advocate, likewise in WPPIL No. 03/2012 petitioners also an advocates and claim to have contributed to various social and environmental causes. In both the petitions, petitioners have projected particular grievances against the de-notification of protected Wildlife Sanctuary named Trikuta Wildlife Sanctuary claiming therein that the authorities have not adhered to various Supreme Court guidelines. In addition, have claimed that the proposed mining is a potential threat to environment and public health. 2. In WPPIL No. 02/2012 petitioner has challenged the validity of the environmental clearance as granted by respondent No. 1 dated 3rd May, 2012, whereas in WPPIL No. 03/2012 petitioners therein have in addition challenged the other recommendations vis-a-vis de-notification of Trikuta Wildlife Sanctuary, extraction of high grade magnasite, deposit at Chipprian Hills, setting up of dead burnt magnasite plant at Panthal and also have sought direction so as to command respondent No. 9-Chairman Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board to prevent him from alienating the land in violation to the provisions of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board Act, 1988. 3. National Mineral Development Corporation (NMDC) Limited-respondent No. 7 in WPPIL No. 03/2012, a Central Public Sector Enterprises, established in the year 1958 is stated to have contributed a lot to the Nation for developing various Mining Projects. The Government of India, as a policy decision, desired this Company to spread its activities across the length and breadth of the Country and conduct mining operations of various minerals in the most eco-friendly manner with ultra modern mechanization. In the same background, NMDC Limited has incorporated the Jammu and Kashmir Mineral Development Corporation (J&KMDC) in the year 1989 for the development of eco-friendly mining industry in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. 4. The project under challenge is for mining/extraction of Magnesite (MgCO3), situated in Chipprian Hills of Sivalik Mountain. According to NMDC Limited the results proved that Panthal Magnesite deposit is having highest grade MgCO3, i.e., between 93% to 95%. The targeted production of 30,000 tons of this high grade Magnesite by NMDC/JKMDC would be major import substitute and will reduce the burden of foreign exchange of the Country. 5. It is stated by the said J&KMDC and NMDC (respondent Nos. The targeted production of 30,000 tons of this high grade Magnesite by NMDC/JKMDC would be major import substitute and will reduce the burden of foreign exchange of the Country. 5. It is stated by the said J&KMDC and NMDC (respondent Nos. 6&7) that with the aid of ultra modern technology, both the mine site as well as their plant are not only eco-friendly, but also highly ultra modern, thereby leaving no wastage or effluents which are detrimental to the ecology and environment in the vicinity. The proposed project is stated to be of for reaching benefits. 6. In the year 1988, respondent No. 7 had applied to the State Government for grant of mining lease of 'Magnesite' and 'Dolomite' based on which the State Government decided to set up a joint sector company in the public sector to be formed by respondent No. 7. Necessary formalities as a result thereof were completed. The proprietary land measuring 477 Kanals and 05 Marias has remained in possession of respondent Nos. 6&7 on lease to be used for extraction of the minerals. 7. Respondent Nos. 6&7 tor achieving object had undertaken the process of obtaining requisite NOCs/permission from the concerned authorities. In the process, Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests-respondent No. Ivide its letter dated 3rd May, 2011 addressed to respondent No. 6 (J&KMDC) has accorded environmental clearance to the said project under the provisions of EIA Notification dated 24th September, 2006 subject to strict compliance of 21 Specific conditions and 25 general conditions incorporated therein which include clearance under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 from the National Board for Wildlife. Specific condition No. ii reads as under: "i. Environmental clearance is subject to final order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Goa Foundation v. Union of India in Writ petition (Civil) No. 460 of 2004, as may be applicable to this project." 8. Specific condition No. ii reads as under: "i. Environmental clearance is subject to final order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Goa Foundation v. Union of India in Writ petition (Civil) No. 460 of 2004, as may be applicable to this project." 8. In the letter addressed to Chief Wildlife Warden dated 31st January, 2012 by the Deputy Inspector General (WL) it has been mentioned that in the 23rd meeting of the Standing Committee of NBWL held on 14th of October, 2011, de-notification of the Trikuta Wildlife Sanctuary has been recommended with certain conditions which conditions have been reiterated, but then it has been recorded as under; "the above recommendation is subject to the existing directive of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the provisions of Forest (Conservative) Act 1980." 9. In the reply filed by respondent Nos. 2,3,5,8 and 10, it has been clearly stated in Para 14 of the reply that the proposed de-notification/diversion of Trikuta Wildlife Sanctuary is under consideration of Hon'ble CEC/Hon'ble Supreme Court and orders in this behalf are still awaited. 10. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length. 11. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 6&7 highlighted the object and prospect as projected and have also given details of the permission, recommendations as made by the respondents in their respective capacities. At the outset, petitioners in WPPIL No. 03/2012 submitted that they would amend their petition, but then said petition may be heard for admission. 12. We have bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the pleadings and the material as placed on record and also the submissions as made by either side. In our opinion, both the petitions are pre-mature. So far as petition WPPIL No. 02/2012 is concerned the only prayer made therein is that order dated 25th April, 2011 passed by Standing Committee of National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) by virtue of which Trikuta Wildlife Sanctuary has been de-notified shall be quashed and also the approval of the Union Minister, Ministry of Environment and Forests allowing the mining project near famous Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine by de-notifying Trikuta Wildlife Sanctuary may be quashed. 13. 13. So far as recommendation regarding de-notification of Trikuta Wildlife Sanctuary is concerned, same in terms of the letter dated 31st January, 2012 addressed by the Deputy Inspector General(WL), Ministry of Environment and Forests, Wildlife Division has been recorded to be subject to the existing directive of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and provisions of Forest (Conservative) Act, 1980, same position is further supported by the reply as filed by respondent Nos. 2,3,5,8 and 10 wherein at Para No. 14, it has been clearly stated that the proposed de-notification/diversion of Trikuta Wildlife Sanctuary is under consideration of Hon'ble CEC/Hon'ble Supreme Court and orders in this behalf are still awaited. 14. Furthermore the environmental clearance as granted by respondent No. 1 referred to hereinabove is subject to numerous conditions which include the final order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as may be applicable. What would emerge therefrom is that the aforesaid de-notification as well as environmental clearance is subject to the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court, without waiting for such orders, the petitioners have filed the instant petitions. 15. Another important aspect of the matter is that both the petitioners have not complied with the Rules regarding Writ Petition in public interest as framed by the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir notified vide notification No. 761 dated 19.10.2011, in terms whereof, Rule 24 has been inserted to the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1997 under the heading of "Part III" to the Writ Proceedings Rules 1997 to regulate the procedure relating to filing of "Writ Petition" in Public Interest; sub rule 4(VII) of Rule 24 as inserted has not been observed, same reads as under: "(vii) Before filing a PIL Petition, the petitioner must send a representation to the concerned authorities for taking remedial action to enable the concerned authorities to take appropriate action. Details/copies of such representation and reply, if any, must be filed along with the petition. However, in urgent cases, petitions can be allowed to be filed without any such representation. In such cases, the petitioner must give prior notice of filing of petition to the concerned authorities and/or their standing counsel, if any." 16. Details/copies of such representation and reply, if any, must be filed along with the petition. However, in urgent cases, petitions can be allowed to be filed without any such representation. In such cases, the petitioner must give prior notice of filing of petition to the concerned authorities and/or their standing counsel, if any." 16. The petitioners before filing the writ petition as is clear from the aforequoted rules were required to send representation to the concerned authorities which they have not, in absence thereof, they were to project that the matter is of urgent nature so filed without sending such representation but again prior notice of filing petition to the concerned authorities or their counsel was imperative. In the petitions neither petitioners have projected any urgency so as to file petition withou t sending representation to the concerned authorities nor have they given any prior notice as was required. 17. Petition WPPIL No. 03/2012 was also required to be settled in terms of sub rule 4(viii) of rule 24 to make a statement that to the best of their knowledge, whether any other PIL Petition was filed. Admittedly WPPIL No. 02/2012 was pending, they have opted to remain silent, they have not made requisite statement so have not observed the Rules. Non-adherence to the said Rule 24 of Jammu & Kashmir High Court Rules, 1999 also renders both the petitions as pre-mature. 18. In view of the aforesaid position, both two petitions are held to be pre-mature on all counts, as such dismissed along with connected CMAs. 19. In the peculiar circumstances, no order as to cost.